II. PRIDE OF STATE II. ROMAN RENAISSANCE 79

spoken above set forth the rustics. The porphyries and alabasters, and the other harder stones of mingled quality, represent the middle classes, if we are to deal in comparisons; and by means of these the ancients adorned their temples with incrustations and ornaments in a magnificent manner. And after these come the chalcedonies and sardonyxes, etc., which are so transparent that no spot can exist in them without its being seen. Thus let men endowed with nobility lead a life in which no spot can be found.”*

Canute or Cœur de Lion (I name not Godfrey or St. Louis)¹ would have dashed their sceptres against the lips of a man who should have dared to utter to them flattery such as this. But in the fifteenth century it was rendered and accepted as a matter of course, and the tempers which delighted in it necessarily took pleasure also in every vulgar or false means of marking worldly superiority. And among such false means, largeness of scale in the dwelling-house was of course one of the easiest and most direct. All persons, however senseless or dull, could appreciate size; it required some exertion of intelligence to enter into the spirit of the quaint carving of the Gothic times, but none to perceive that one heap of stones was higher than another.†

* The advice is good but illogical; for the spots of marbles are, when frequent enough, thought decorative. How often has it happened that men of rank have thought sin also decorative, if only bold and frequent!²

† Observe, however, that the magnitude spoken of here and in the following passages, is the finished and polished magnitude sought for the sake of pomp: not the rough magnitude sought for the sake of sublimity; respecting which see the Seven Lamps, chap. iii. §§ 5,6, and 8 [Vol. VIII. pp. 104-108].

¹ [For another reference to Cœur de Lion, see Queen of the Air, § 105. To St. Louis-”the holiest of monarchs” (Modern Painters, vol. iii. ch. xviii. § 39)-the references are numerous: see General Index.]

² [Ed. 1 is different here, and reads:-

“the chalcedonies and sardonyxes, etc., which are so transparent that there can be no spot in them. Thus men endowed...”

And the footnote reads:-

“‘Quibus nulla macula inest quæ non cernatur. Ita viri nobilitate præditi eam vitam peragant cui nulla nota possit inviri [inveniri].’ The first sentence is literally, ‘in which there is no spot that may not be seen.’ But I imagine the writer meant it as I have put it in the text, else his comparison does not hold.”

In revising his translation, Ruskin struck out of course the original footnote, substituting in ed. 2 the one which stands above.]

[Version 0.04: March 2008]